Skip to main content

Table 2 Assessment of study quality

From: Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer

Study Quality indicators from Newcastle-Ottawa scale Score
Selection Comparability Exposure/outcome
1 2 3 4 5a 5b 6 7 8
Bogani et al. [31] Yes NO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9
Chen et al. [20] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 8
Ditto et al. [25] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9
Frumovitz et al. [26] Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 7
Ghezzi et al. [27] Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 7
Lee et al. [21] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9
Li et al. [22] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No 6
Lim et al. [23] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 7
Malzoni et al. [28] Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8
Nam et al. [24] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 8
Toptas et al. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 8
Zakashansky et al. [30] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 7
  1. For case–control studies, 1 indicates cases independently validated; 2 cases are consecutive or representative of population; 3 communitycontrols; 4 controls have no history of cervical cancer ;5A study controls for sex and age; 5B study controls for any additional factor(s); 6 ascertainment ofexposure by secure record or blinded interview; 7 same method of ascertainment for cases and controls; and 8 same non-response rate for casesand controls. For cohort studies, 1 indicates exposed cohort truly representative, 2 the non-exposed cohort drawn from the same community, 3ascertainment of exposure by secure record or structured interview, 4 outcome of interest was not present at start of study, 5A cohorts comparableon basis of sex and age, 5B cohorts comparable on other factor(s), 6 quality of outcome assessment, 7 follow-up long enough for outcomes tooccur; and 8 complete follow-up